MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I'll give you a report on the
President's day, and then I have an opening statement I'd like to
make. The President began very early this morning with a 7:00 a.m.
intelligence briefing, followed by a 7:30 a.m. FBI briefing. Then he
departed the White House for the National Prayer Breakfast, where he
spoke about the importance of faith and prayer in the lives of the
American people. The President returned to the White House, and he is,
as we speak, enjoying lunch with the Vice President, their weekly
lunch.

And then the President will, later this afternoon, take a tour and
demonstration of an exciting new technology that can help make America
less dependent on foreign nations for our energy supplies, while also
making us environmentally much better off here at home, when he takes a
tour and demonstration of hydrogen fuel cells. The President will view
a demonstration of stationary fuel-cell applications and
hydrogen-fuel-powered vehicles. And he will deliver remarks calling on
Congress to pass his initiative to provide funding for hydrogen-fueled
vehicles, to make us more energy -- independent in terms of energy,
and to provide greater environmental protection for our country.

Let me make a statement about some events concerning Iraq and other
matters, diplomatically, that have taken place: Yesterday and today
mark important days of diplomatic achievement at home and abroad. In
addition to Secretary Powell's presentation yesterday at the United
Nations of the facts concerning Saddam Hussein's concealment of his
weapons of mass destruction, the President today would like to thank
the 10 nations of Eastern Europe that issued a statement yesterday in
support of the United States' effort to disarm Iraq.

People of Eastern Europe know well the dangers and risks of
allowing tyranny to go unchallenged, and they stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of the United States. The
President is proud to have their support.

The President also welcomes the vote today in the Turkish
Parliament to authorize site preparations at Turkish military bases.
Turkey is a stalwart friend and a staunch NATO ally. The Turkish
government is facing up to difficult issues in a serious and
conscientious way. And the United States respects the principles of
the Turkish government in bringing this issue to the Turkish
Parliament. The United States wants peace, and we will continue to
work closely with the Turkish government to see that Iraq complies with
the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441.

And finally, the President also notes and appreciates the unanimous
vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to provide their advice
and consent to the ratification of the weapons reducing Treaty of
Moscow. The President entered office dedicated to improving relations
with Russia and to reducing the levels of nuclear weapons required to
maintain the peace. The President thanks the senators on the committee
for the unanimous, bipartisan vote in support the treaty, and he urges
the full Senate to act soon.

With that, I'm happy to take your questions.

Q Ari, can I ask you a follow up something you said this
morning? Do you have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is going to
suddenly feign cooperation by agreeing to some things he hasn't agreed
to before?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, judging by Saddam Hussein's efforts in the
past to conceal and to deny and to cheat and retreat, it would not
surprise anybody if all of a sudden Saddam Hussein showed a little bit
of the tip of his iceberg. I don't think it would surprise anybody if
all of a sudden Saddam Hussein, for example, allowed U-2 flights to
fly, or all of a sudden showed up with some weapons which he's
previously denied ever having. So it would not surprise anybody in the
United States government if all of a sudden Saddam Hussein showed up
with the little tip of his iceberg.

Q Well, if he is to cooperate, how much of the iceberg does he
have to show?

MR. FLEISCHER: All. Complete disarmament -- just as promised to
the United Nations when the United Nations Security Council passed its
resolutions.

Q Since you speak for the President, we have no access to him,
can you categorically deny that the United States will take over the
oil fields when we win this war? Which is apparently obvious and
you're on your way and I don't think you doubt your victory. Oil --
is it about oil?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had
anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to
lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that.
This is about saving lives by protecting the American people --

Q We will not take over the oil fields, are you saying that?

MR. FLEISCHER: The oil fields belong to the people of Iraq, the
government of Iraq, all of Iraq. All the resources --

Q And we don't want any part of that?

MR. FLEISCHER: -- of Iraq need to be administered by the Iraqi
government. And any action that is taken in Iraq is going to be taken
with an eye toward the future of Iraq. And that involves the
protecting of infrastructure, providing humanitarian aid. And that
needs to be done by the Iraqi people.

Q There are reports that we've divided up the oil already,
divvied it up with the Russians and French and so forth. Isn't that
true?

MR. FLEISCHER: What's the source of these reports that you cite?

Q They're all over the place.

MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific?

Q That we have just -- we will take the oil fields and then
we will parcel out the oil.

MR. FLEISCHER: But you cited some reports. I'm just curious about
-- if you can be more specific about the source of these reports that
you're citing here today.

Q -- have you been reading the newspapers?

MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific? Anywhere in particular?

Q Senator Lugar said it.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no truth to that, that we would divide
up the oil fields. As I --

Q Your own people have said something -- but I'm sorry I
can't pinpoint it.

MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the infrastructure of Iraq belongs
to the people of Iraq. And that is going to be respected.

MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, if the regime changes there will be a
new government. And the government will represent the people of Iraq.

Q A couple questions, Ari. They're unrelated, so let me take
them one at a time, if I could. If Saddam Hussein starts to melt his
iceberg and dribble out these weapons, doesn't that complicate things
for you in terms of building world opinion to take military action, to
say that he is not cooperating, that he is not in compliance with
1441?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it makes the exact case that Hans Blix
made when he went before the United Nations and said that Iraq has
showed the tip of an emerged iceberg -- we don't know, is how he put
it -- we don't know if the weapon launchers for chemical -- with
chemical warheads that were discovered by the inspectors represent the
tip of a submerged iceberg, is how Hans Blix put it.

But if, all of a sudden, something were to show up, after Saddam
Hussein denied vehemently, repeatedly, including yesterday, that he
doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction, it would underscore the
fact that Saddam Hussein is again lying to the world.

Q But you know what the arguments will be. The arguments will
be, well, the process does seem to be working; he's disgorging this
information, he's revealing his weapons; let's let that process
continue. And then before you know it, you're into June.

MR. FLEISCHER: There's only one thing that counts, and that is the
complete and total disarmament of Iraq. That way the threat that Colin
Powell discussed before the world yesterday can be removed from people
around the world, so we don't have to worry about Saddam Hussein using
the weapons that remain below water.

Q The other question was, the forces that have been put on
alert for possible deployment to the western Pacific -- and I know
that you don't talk about deployments, so I'm going to ask you the
political question here -- is this an indication that the President
is willing to consider as an option something other than diplomacy,
which he has said is the only option in the past, for dealing with
North Korea?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated, I think two or
three days ago, to the same question, and that was that the President
believes that diplomacy is the way to handle the situation vis-a-vis
North Korea. That continues to be pursued with our allies in the
region -- notably, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan -- all of
whom have a very important stake in a peaceful outcome of this; all of
who view North Korea's actions as a setback to peaceful dialogue in the
region, why they want to pursue peaceful dialogue. The United States,
of course, has contingency plans and the United States makes certain
the contingencies are viable.

Q So is this another example of diplomacy backed up by the
credible threat of force?

MR. FLEISCHER: This is an example of the United States pursuing
this through diplomatic means and making certain that we have
contingencies that are viable.

Q Ari, why didn't Powell share, or the government, U.S.
government share the information that Powell presented yesterday to the
inspectors prior to --

MR. FLEISCHER: They did.

Q All of that detail was shared with the inspectors?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Yes, Dr. Rice talked about that
last night on her interviews.

Q Is there any plan to take whatever information may not have
made it into the presentation and give them access to that in the weeks
ahead?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, as Secretary Powell has said,
there's information that we always keep an eye on vis-a-vis sources and
methods. And I'm not indicating that there is information that was
provided to the inspectors beyond what was provided publicly, because
we still have an abiding interest in helping the inspectors to do their
job. And so we work this together as we work with the inspectors. And
I think that's one of the reasons that you saw Dr. ElBaradei, the head
of the International Atomic Energy Association, say in London this
morning that what's next is there has to be, in Dr. ElBaradei's words,
a drastic change in Iraq's behavior.

Q Can I just go in another direction? There was a lot of
praise on Capitol Hill yesterday for Powell's presentation. But one of
the criticisms that a couple of people talked about was the aftermath
-- in the event of war, what happens in Iraq afterwards in terms of
rebuilding, how we pay for it, who participates in that kind of thing.
The President talked a lot during the campaign about he never wanted to
use U.S. troops for, in his words, nation-building. We have troops now
in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia. Presumably, we would have them in Iraq
afterwards. Has the President changed his position about
nation-building?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President continues to believe that the
purpose of using the military should be to fight and win wars. Our
government, broadly speaking, has a variety, however, of agencies that
are well-situated, whose mission is to help protect the peace after a
war is fought. And by that, I mean, in the event that there is a war
with Iraq, the President has made very plain in numerous conversations
with foreign leaders, that immediately upon military action, if it
comes to military action, plans are in place to provide humanitarian
aid and relief to the people of Iraq. It is a fundamentally important
part of how the United States and democracies around the world do their
business as liberators, not conquerors.

And what the President refers to, specifically, the number of food
distribution points that are in Iraq that the oil-for- food program has
already identified, as a means of getting food to the Iraqi people,
getting supplies to the Iraqi people, making sure that medical care is
provided to the Iraqi people. And I think, again, this is one reason
that the interesting reality of events around the world is often the
United States is viewed as the liberator.

Q So, just under your plan, how long would U.S. troops be in
Iraq, if there was war?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said for as long --

Q A year, five years?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not put a timetable on it. The
President has made clear that we are committed to the future of a
stable Iraq, a unified Iraq. And that will remain, if we go to war,
American commitment.

Q Under your plans for a postwar Iraq, who would administer the
food aid? Who would be the governing authority?

MR. FLEISCHER: The plan would be for a government to emerge both
from inside and outside Iraq. And this would be something that we
continue to work with groups both inside and outside to develop. But
the future of Iraq must be up to the Iraqi people.

Q But that takes a while. To stand up a government --

MR. FLEISCHER: Which is exactly why I indicated that if there is a
decision to use military force, the military will remain in place to
help provide for a secure military environment, a peaceful environment,
so that the civilian apparatus could reemerge.

Q So while the civilian apparatus reemerges, the military
administers things. And to follow Helen's very interesting line of
questioning, would that include the oil fields?

MR. FLEISCHER: The military would be there to provide for the
physical security for as long as that was required, to create that
atmosphere throughout Iraq so that peace could emerge. And we would
work with the civilian authorities, both inside and outside, during a
period of what would be obvious overlap.

Q So right now the civilian authorities who administer the oil
fields for the Iraqi people, which you say you're interested in, is the
U.N. oil-for-food organization. It has modalities of contract and
accounts and things like that. Is the administration pledging that the
oil fields will continue to be run under that system, for the benefit
of the Iraqi people, as it is now?

MR. FLEISCHER: The future would be administered, as I mentioned,
by a number of agencies, including international. There are a variety
of international relief organizations whose mission is aimed at
providing help to people in all kinds of contingencies around the
world.

Q And the U.S. military will have a roll in that?

MR. FLEISCHER: The U.S. military, if there is a war, would be
there for the purpose, just like in Afghanistan, of providing the
umbrella of security, so that any operation would not be followed by
any type of fighting, that the secure environment could exist. And
it's unclear how long that would be, but the point the President has
made is it will be an abiding American commitment to the unity and the
security of Iraq.

Q President Putin and Chirac agreed today that a diplomatic
solution should be found to Iraq. How do you interpret these
machinations?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President would hope that a
diplomatic solution can be found. The question is, if Saddam Hussein
is not willing to be a partner to a diplomatic solution, does the world
sit by and do nothing, as Saddam Hussein continues to arm up and
develop weapons, which as we saw from the Secretary's presentation
yesterday, involves some of the most horrible chemical and biological
weapons that mankind could ever imagine.

Q And is he still undecided about a second resolution?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is continuing, through the Secretary
of State and through his own efforts, to consult with friends and
allies around the world about what course should come next, and that
consultation process continues.

Q Ari, you have a week, almost a week now before Hans Blix
comes back to the Security Council. Can you tell us more specifically
what the White House is going to do in that week to press its case?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think what comes next is ongoing
diplomacy. The President is serious when he talks about the importance
of listening to and leading around the world. The opinions of
neighbors around the world -- as I noted with the 10 European nations
that came out with their powerful statement of support yesterday --
are important. There are many nations that the President will continue
to talk to.

One thing is for certain -- and this is a trend around the world
that you saw starting several weeks ago, and I think it's a trend that
is accelerating with Secretary Powell's presentation -- the world
is increasingly seeing this from the United States' point of view that
Saddam Hussein must disarm. If he does not disarm, a coalition will be
assembled to disarm him. That is increasingly the point of view of
leaders throughout the world. There may be some corners, some minority
opinion that do not believe that. But that is why diplomacy remains
important and will continue to be pursued.

Q And what is ongoing diplomacy? Is that the President calling
leaders --

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

Q And what are you doing in this -- yes?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

Q What are you doing in this country to convince Americans that
this is the right course?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, the President addressed many of
these issues head on in his State of the Union address, where the
President talked about the risks of letting Saddam Hussein continue to
be armed. Secretary Powell, in his presentation yesterday at the
United Nations, was viewed by obviously tens of millions of Americans.
And the President will continue to speak out, and members of his
administration -- as Secretary Powell testified before the Congress
today -- will continue to speak out in public about the facts that
have been presented.

Q According to the press reports and -- officials that
credible threats are still there, as far as terrorism is concerned --
here and also in Afghanistan because al Qaedas are coming back from
Pakistan to Afghanistan. Fighting is going on there. Now, as far as
this credible threat is concerned, is that in connection with anything
to do with Saddam Hussein's connection with al Qaeda? Or due to this
sanction between the U.S. and Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, even without the situation in Iraq, we have,
since September 11th, of course, prior to September 11th, it's clear
that there -- al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to
striking and hitting the United States anywhere and everywhere it can.
And this is one of the reasons we have the new Department of Homeland
Security, as you know. And September 11th, indeed, brought that home
to the American people about how vulnerable we, indeed, are.

And so the Department of Homeland Security, as well as other
agencies of the government, continue to monitor the threat environment
to determine whether or not the reporting that we get around the world
leads to any conclusions or other analysis. That's why the threat
level remains elevated at yellow. It continues to be a concern that
people around the world -- regardless of what's happening in Iraq,
including what's happening in Iraq -- have a desire to strike.
That's something that Secretary Powell talked about yesterday.

Q Can I follow just one more? On Sunday a Muslim holiday
starts and millions of Muslims will be gathering and going to pilgrim.
Any message for the Muslims or how we should take this, because of the
holiday, there might be some more threats.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's important to recognize that the Hadj,
which is a month-long period, is a time when Muslims throughout the
world make a pilgrimage to Mecca and to Medina. And it's one of the
pillars of the Islamic faith, is to go on this pilgrimage at least once
in life. This is a pilgrimage of peace. The Islamic religion is a
religion of peace. There are others, however, represent a minority of
a minority of a minority within the Islamic world who subvert Islam's
message of peace and instead use the name of God as a way to inspire
fear and to try to bring attacks to our country and to other
countries.

This is a time of peace for most Muslims, for almost all Muslims.
Unfortunately, the world has seen that there are some who subvert that
message.

Q To follow up on Elizabeth's question. How crucial is the
report that Hans Blix is going to give the United Nations on February
14th for deciding how everything unfolds and how things come together?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the importance of Hans Blix's next testimony
will be determined by Saddam Hussein. If Saddam Hussein continues to
deceive and to deny and to have arms, then it takes on more
importance. And that's why this is all about the actions that Saddam
Hussein needs to take to come into compliance.

As we heard yesterday with the audio tapes that were released,
instead of coming into compliance, Saddam Hussein is doing just the
opposite. He is engaging in every bit and level of deception and
denial that he can possibly, possibly get away with.

Q Is there a hope by the White House that Hanx Blix will be as
candid as possible about the fact that you don't think that Saddam
Hussein is complying with the weapons inspection? I mean, how
important is what he says to getting the French and others on board?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Dr. ElBaradei and Hans Blix's jobs are
describe the facts as they find them. That is why they've been sent to
Iraq. And the facts as they find them are determined by the actions
taken by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Q Going back to the concern about threats, there have been a
number of officials who talked now for two or three days about
increased chatter and the usual phrase that we hear. What can you tell
us about that? And if, in fact, there is increased chatter, why does
that not warrant some sort of increase in the warning?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as a matter of daily review, the intelligence
services, as well as the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI
are all involved in reviewing both the quantity and the quality of
reporting around the world or domestically that might lead to any type
of change, up or down, in the threat alert. They review it each and
every day. And the alert remains at the elevated level of yellow. And
depending on the quantity or quality of information, if there are any
changes that are to be announced, they would get announced each day.
There's nothing that would change it today.

Q But what can you say about reports from a number of officials
that there is increased chatter and that there is increased concern?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there is ongoing concern. And the Hadj does
mark a period that, for most, is a period of peace. It also marks
historically a time when there is increased reporting. And so anything
beyond that would come from the Department of Homeland Security as
events warrant. There is nothing today that changes the status.

But I do -- I think it is worth dwelling on one thing. In
recognizing the combination of what Secretary Powell publicly revealed
yesterday about the intentions and the abilities of some of our
enemies, and the statement that one of our nation's enemies made when
he was convicted in the United States courtroom, and that was Richard
Reid's conviction. I want to read from something that he said upon
being convicted.

This is Richard Reid: "I do not apologize for my actions. I am at
war with your country. Your flag will come down, and so will your
country." We have to be reminded that the people that we are dealing
with are not mere lawbreakers, they are not mere criminals; they are
people who, if they could, would be grievous and grievous attack, and
they have been trained to do so to the American people and to our
friends and allies abroad. And that does put it into an important
context that always has to be considered as we review the type of
enemies who are trying, trying, to attack us.

Q On the homefront, how do you assess the status of efforts by
the President and White House advisors to build consensus for the
President's two top domestic initiatives, the economic package, and the
Medicare? And has that effort been hampered by the focus on Iraq and
the personnel turnover that you had at the year-end --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, Greg, as you know -- you've covered the Hill
for quite a long time -- frankly, I think you've seen a lot of action
on Capitol Hill for early session of the Congress. The fact that the
Senate has already moved in the Foreign Relations Committee on the
Treaty of Moscow, the fact that they are already moving on the floor to
begin the confirmation process of judges, the fact that committees have
reported out the judges, the prompt confirmation of Secretary Snow.

But beyond that, the pace of Congress is a very predictable pace,
and Congresses never act here this quickly. In fact, Congress is
getting ready to go on a recess. And so, the pace of Congress,
typically, on most domestic matters is, in all fairness, a process that
much more plays itself out toward the spring, into summer, into fall.
As you know, the key action that must take place in order for budgets
to be passed or Medicare to be considered is the budget resolution that
under the law, the budget resolution is not required to be passed by
the Congress until April 15th. In the past, even absent of war,
Congress hardly ever met the April 15th deadline. So this remains
very, very early in the life of the Congress.

Q But on both of those issues, though, I mean, you've had some
what appeared to be early stumbles by the administration to defend and
to launch those two initiatives, the Medicare and the economic
package. For the first week to 10 days on the economic package, you
had the Treasury officials and the White House officials trying to fill
in details about how the dividend cut works. You've had a push-back
from the Hill Republicans -- Senator Grassley, Senator Breaux -- not
a Republican -- on the Medicare details. Does that indicate that
there's been some stumbling in getting those off?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it indicates that the normal cycles of
life on the Hill go on. I've been around tax business for a
considerably long time, and I've never seen a tax proposal where the
Treasury Department did not provide additional details. That's the
nature of the tax code. And so I think you're seeing the domestic
cycle play itself out very much in line with the way it's previously
been played out.

Q Ari, the National Council of Churches, led by a former
Democratic congressman, the Reverend Bob Edgar, has enlisted a bishop,
Melvin Talbert, of the President's Methodist Church, to do a TV
commercial, reported by The Washington Post, in which this Methodist
bishop claims, "Going to war against Iraq violates God's law and the
teachings of Jesus Christ." And my question is: Since the President is
widely known to be a deeply religious person, he surely does not want
you to suggest by any evasion that he agrees or does not care about
this Methodist bishop's claim. So what is his answer to this bishop's
charge of violating God's law?

MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, the decisions that the President makes
about war and peace and about whether or not force needs to be used in
Iraq are based on the President's judgments as a secular leader about
what is necessary to protect this country. The President is a deeply
religious man. But these are decisions that the President will make
based on intelligence reports, based on information that he is aware of
on how to protect our country from potential attack. That's what's on
the President's mind -- particularly since September 11th.

Q By way of an attack on a well-known part of the Bush
administration, the Media Research Center reports that on January the
25th, on national television, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift said -- and
this is a quote: "Ari Fleischer is a mouthpiece. He gives away
nothing. The press can't stand him." (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Eleanor. Did she really? (Laughter.) She's off
my list. I won't leak to her anymore. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. I have to ask my question -- (Laughter.)

Q That's a long list.

Q Since we all voluntarily come to your briefings, and since I
can certainly can stand you -- (laughter) -- do you believe that
all --

MR. FLEISCHER: Is that good or bad, Lester? (Laughter.)

Q -- all the rest of us can't stand you? Or isn't Clift an
extremist who made up such an outrageous charge?

MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I have no idea. (Laughter.) Whether you
can --

Q What do you think?

MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, whether you can stand me or you can't stand
me, my job is to stand here and take your questions. (Laughter.)

Q Well, you don't think all of these people can't stand you, do
you?

Q Turning to the fuel cell thing today, some Democrats on
Democrats on Capitol Hill are saying that the proposal that the
President has made is inadequately funded, and some environmental
groups have been saying that it's just a cynical way for the President
to fool people into thinking he's really an environmentalist. How do
you respond to both of those criticisms?

MR. FLEISCHER: What's so unfortunate about comments like that is
the partisan nature of these type of attacks is exactly why it's been
so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together to protect the
environment. Instead of saying "thank you" and welcoming a major
environmental initiative, opposition parties and groups that represent
more than the DNC than the environmental cause launch attacks instead
of being gratified to

receive a $1.2 billion initiative, with $750 million of new money,
during a time of very tight budgets that can represent one of the most
exciting scientific breakthroughs to make us energy independent and to
protect the environment.

So I dismiss it. And the President will continue to work with
Democrats and Republicans alike and the environmental community on
behalf of the hydrogen initiative so that the people of the country can
benefit from a new generation and new technologies in auto travel.

Q Ari, while Iraq seems to be the main focus of the foreign
policy of the United States, North Korea is raising its U.S. rhetoric,
against the U.S. Does that worry the Bush administration and do you
think this may -- the rhetoric makes the situation far more
dangerous?

MR. FLEISCHER: The real people who have to worry are the people of
North Korea -- the people of North Korea, who deserve a better future
and a government that represents the aspirations of mankind to have
food, to have health care, to have a decent life. And the actions of
the North Korean government, sadly, are nothing new. Much of this
rattling has taken place in previous decades and previous times. And
this President is dedicated to dealing with this and to do so
diplomatically, along with allies in the region.

Q Second, unrelated question. Is the President involved in the
Miguel Estrada nomination and getting him passed -- is he involved
personally, or who's handling that for him here in the White House?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President obviously is monitoring it very
closely. The President looks at the judiciary and sees the number of
vacancies that exist, and is cognizant of the fact that there's a
judicial emergency in America, where a large number of seats in both
the appellate level and the district level remain unfilled,
particularly at the appellate level.

The nomination of Miguel Estrada has now been passed out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. It will proceed shortly to the floor of
the United States Senate, and already a number of important Democrats
are distancing themselves from the rare efforts of some in the Democrat
Party to filibuster the naming of a judge who obviously has bipartisan
support to be confirmed. It is rare; it would be absolutely
unprecedented for a filibuster to be successful. It has never, ever
happened on this level. Neither party has ever successfully
filibustered an appeals court nominee.

So the President understands that there may be some who oppose --
let them have their day on the floor, put it to a vote. And if a
majority passes and the finest traditions of our country have been
honored, and the President's right to name people in his constitutional
role as the Chief Executive to the judiciary will be honored.

Q Ari, back on Iraq. If Saddam Hussein does start to reveal
some of his arsenal, do we have any way of verifying that he's not
divulging all of it? I mean, how are we going to be able to verify
that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the question is an interesting one to turn
around here. And after you've been lied to and told by Saddam Hussein,
and covered his statements on the air where he and his commanders say
they have no weapons of mass destruction, what would you conclude if
all of a sudden he starts coming out with ones or twos or threes or
fours, or allows a U-2 to fly? Obviously, he lied. And if he lied
about that, what else is he lying about?

We're not interested in the tip of the iceberg that Saddam Hussein
may show above water. We're interested in the iceberg that remains
under water that can sink the lives of tens of millions of people.

Q But how will you ever know, if you don't know what the
iceberg is and he's not revealing all of it --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think as anybody who listened to Secretary Powell
yesterday knows, we know enough to have enough concerns that the world
is now facing a decision about whether force will have to be used to
disarm Saddam Hussein.

Q Aren't you really saying that war is inevitable then? I
mean, if you can't verify it --

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not given up -- the President
has not given up hope. And one thing we continue to believe is by
continuing to have world pressure put on Saddam Hussein, we have not
given up hope that he'll either leave the country or that he will
disarm to such an overwhelming great degree that people can know.

But when you consider the fact that the previous United Nations
inspectors believed he had 30,000 liters of chemical weapons and
biological weapons, of VX, of anthrax, it's going to require a large,
large number of acres' worth of parking lots for the world to know that
Saddam Hussein has taken his weapons out of hiding, put them out on the
parking lot for them to be destroyed.

Q In your statement when you started the briefing, you said you
want peace, the administration wants peace. Many in this country and
around the world want peace. They're going to be demonstrating in the
next few weeks for peace. Is it wrong for them, or unpatriotic for
them not to want war, as well? I mean, you're saying you want peace,
but it looks like you're pushing toward war.

MR. FLEISCHER: It is emphatically a patriotic act for people to
protest on behalf of whatever cause they see fit in our country. And
if some differ with the President and call for the use of no force and
take to the streets peacefully to protest that, that's the finest
tradition of America. It's not new. It's been the way the American
people communicate with their government for hundreds of years. We
settle our differences in this country through elections and through
peaceful protest. And the majority will will prevail. And the
President is confident that when he makes his case, if he makes his
case as Secretary Powell has made the case, that the American people
agree with him about the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to continue
to have the chemical, biological weapons that he has.

Q But it's not just about the protest that's scheduled in the
next couple of weeks. It's about a feeling, a pervasive feeling that
Americans just don't want war -- even after General Powell's speech
yesterday.

MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, Americans don't want war. But Americans
have always, throughout our history, shown a willingness to fight for
peace when peace was threatened. And in terms of the expressions of
support, I think all you need to do to look at the representatives of
the people, for example, in addition to the public polling that you all
have, and when you see that last year in the Congress, in 2002, the
vote in the Senate to authorize force was 77-23, and in the House it
was 296-133.

Q Ari, my question was also about Miguel Estrada. But I have a
second question -- that was answered, okay? General Tommy Franks is
being investigated by the --

MR. FLEISCHER: Is this your question, or is this Ivan's question?
(Laughter.) That's okay.

Q Are you watching Ivan?

MR. FLEISCHER: I always watch Ivan. (Laughter.)

Q I help Ivan. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead, string for him.

Q Thank you. Okay, let me start now. You got me all --
General Tommy Franks is being investigated by the Pentagon for certain
indiscretions. Secretary Rumsfeld says, regardless of the outcome,
General Franks will lead a war on Iraq. Does the President agree?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has full confidence in General
Franks. And if you have a follow-up, I'll be happy to answer it. But
the President has full confidence in General Franks, as you well know.

Q Thank you.

Q Ari, two questions. First on North Korea. We've been
discussing sending more aerial and naval assets to the region to keep
our options open, especially as we deal with the Iraq situation.
They're now saying that if we do so that if we do so, that they will
consider a preemptive strike on U.S. troops in South Korea. What is
our reaction to that? Are we going to let them --

MR. FLEISCHER: It's exactly as I indicated earlier, that rattling
statements coming out of North Korea are not new. We have seen them
before. And the question is how best to respond. And it's the
President's judgment and the judgment of Japan and South Korea and
Russia and China that the way to respond is together and to respond
through diplomacy. And that's what we're pursuing.

Q How much credence do we give to their threat?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think that North Korea is only hurting
their own cause and the cause of their people. And I think it's
impossible for anybody to assign creditability to the things that North
Korea says and does given North Korea's random patterns of behavior in
the past.

Q Can I get a second question, please?

MR. FLEISCHER: That will be a third question.

Q Well, a third question on Iraq -- very quickly. It's now
been five months since the President said, weeks, not months.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's not correct.

Q When he went before the United Nations he said he wants to
see something within weeks, not months. In that period of time, Saddam
Hussein has repeatedly shown he does not want to be part of a
diplomatic solution. The members of the Security Council, other than
Britain, have shown they don't want to be any part of a military
solution. Why are we bothering to keep going to the U.N.? Aren't we
just spinning our wheels, or engaging in a public relations contest,
since we can deal with other states, such as the other 10, on a more
bilateral basis?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's an important question. Let me first address
the premise of it, but I then want to spend some time on the second
point you made. One, it's important to be accurate. And when the
President in September said weeks, not months, he said, weeks, not
months for the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution or
not. They, the Security Council, did that in weeks or months.

Separately, the President said a couple weeks ago that this matter
of dealing with Iraq will last for weeks, not months, in terms of the
way Iraq has failed to comply. In other words, the time for diplomacy
will run out, and that Saddam Hussein must disarm.

The reason the President thinks it is so important to work with the
United Nations on this is because the President believes that
international organizations that are dedicated to nonproliferation and
to the peaceful resolution of disputes have got to take and have
meaning -- take meaningful action and have meaning. He believes that
they have to have teeth. They have to have a way to enforce what they
say. Otherwise they would quickly become irrelevant in the reality of
the world.

And that's why the President not only went to the United Nations
himself on September 12th, and put the United Nations Security Council
front and center in this debate, but he asked and directed the
Secretary of State to travel to New York yesterday to go before the
Security Council and put the Security Council front and center in the
living rooms of the American people.

The President has noted in several private meetings with foreign
leaders that he comes from a region where there are more bumpers that
said, "U.S. out of the U.N." than "God Bless America." It's a powerful
feeling in some parts of America that the U.S. should have no role in
the U.N. It's not the President's view. But the President's view is
that for international regimes to have meaning they must be willing to
enforce what they say.

And make no mistake, when the 15 members of the Security Council
voted unanimously on behalf of 1441, they understood what "serious
consequences" meant, and they understood what "material breach" meant.
If they didn't, then they wouldn't have voted for it. There was a
clear understanding that that was a very different resolution.

Q Aren't they trying to wiggle out of a serious consequence,
however, or at least keep putting it off and putting it off, and not
having to deal with it?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's one of the reasons the President is
determined to consult with allies about what the next course of action
should be.

Q One of North Korea and one on Iraq. What is the status of
U.S. food and fuel shipments into North Korea?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know if I have a current update with me,
but in terms of the food shipments, they continue under the USAID
program. The United States remains North Korea's largest provider of
food.

Q On Iraq, when will foreigners and the U.N. inspectors be
advised to leave Iraq, and also citizens be advised to leave the
region?

MR. FLEISCHER: As usual, any decisions about the safety of
Americans traveling abroad is handled by the State Department. They
would be the ones to touch base with about any announcements.

Q -- they will be informed at some time to leave?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's always under the purview of the State
Department to make those determinations and that would come from them.

Q Ari, two things. A group of bishops and pastors from the
National Council of Churches, the United Methodist Church, Episcopal
Church, sent a letter to the President last week. They said they want
a meeting face-to-face with him because they're "uneasy about the moral
justification for war on Iraq." Will the President meet with these
church leaders?

MR. FLEISCHER: As always, we'll fill you in on the President's
schedule, but I want to emphasize again the President is a deeply
religious man, and there are many people in a variety of religions who
are going to have different thoughts about how to keep the peace and
whether or not to go to war with Saddam Hussein. The President will
respect their thoughts, and he will act as he sees fit as
Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.

Q One question on that. You just said the President is a
deeply religious man. Jesus Christ was an absolute pacifist. How does
the President square his militarism with Jesus' pacifism?

Q No, he wasn't --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think there may be a debate in the press corps
about your question. Russell, I --

Q How about the -- at the temple with a whip, where he beat
the hell out of those money-changers? Does that sound like he's an
absolute pacifist, Ari?